If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

CO is HOSED... (Red Flag Bill specifically)

Despite the similar bill in Maryland already having caused the death of one person (cops broke the door down in the middle of the night, he went to check with a gun and got shot) CO dims are apparently going to force this through...

Say goodbye to your 2, 4, and 6 amendment rights...

These people were voted in...
They have completely abandoned their responsibility and are doing what they want to create their next liberal utopia of failure...

This Is an Insane Idea Ripe for Abuse
There’s a lot wrong with this idea. First, the Red Flag bill makes it easy for anyone to file a petition, including angry former lovers from many moons ago. A petitioner can file on the phone or in person, doesn’t have to provide his address, and doesn’t have to reside in Colorado. A petitioner doesn’t have to appear in person at any hearing, and there is no cost to file a petition.

Despite the similar bill in Maryland already having caused the death of one person (cops broke the door down in the middle of the night, he went to check with a gun and got shot) CO dims are apparently going to force this through...

Say goodbye to your 2, 4, and 6 amendment rights...

These people were voted in...
They have completely abandoned their responsibility and are doing what they want to create their next liberal utopia of failure...

So they keep selling this as a family member, person in the house, or member of law enforcement. Can anyone confirm that just anyone can claim that they feel someone is a danger and needs to have their 2nd rights taken away?

So they keep selling this as a family member, person in the house, or member of law enforcement. Can anyone confirm that just anyone can claim that they feel someone is a danger and needs to have their 2nd rights taken away?

Someone can inform the police and then the police could petition the court.

1. They must petition the court ("family or household member or a law enforcement officer") and sign a sworn affidavit
2. The petitioner must establish by a "preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm".
3. If granted- initially, it is good for 14 days
4. A second hearing within 14 days is required to determine if a continuation of the order is needed, by the same standard above
5. If granted, the new order is only good for 364 days, and must be continued by hearing, again by the same standard

Additionally:

"The bill provides a respondent who had a malicious or false petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order or extreme risk protection order filed against him or her with a private cause of action against the petitioner. In the action, the plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, attorney fees, and costs."

So, a person is entitled to actual costs if someone falsely starts this process.

I guess in my humble opinion- this is one of those feel good laws, that will overall make little difference. It certainly wouldn't have stopped Columbine or Sandy Hook...

So they keep selling this as a family member, person in the house, or member of law enforcement. Can anyone confirm that just anyone can claim that they feel someone is a danger and needs to have their 2nd rights taken away?

That is not true. The definition in the statute is as follows:

(2) "FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER" MEANS, WITH RESPECT TO A RESPONDENT, ANY: (a) PERSON RELATED BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE, OR ADOPTION TO THE RESPONDENT; (b) PERSON WHO HAS A CHILD IN COMMON WITH THE RESPONDENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN MARRIED TO THE RESPONDENT OR HAS LIVED TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONDENT AT ANY TIME; (c) PERSON WHO REGULARLY RESIDES OR REGULARLY RESIDED WITH THE RESPONDENT WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS; (d) DOMESTIC PARTNER OF THE RESPONDENT; (e) PERSON WHO HAS A BIOLOGICAL OR LEGAL PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT, INCLUDING STEPPARENTS AND STEPCHILDREN AND GRANDPARENTS AND GRANDCHILDREN; (f) PERSON WHO IS ACTING OR HAS ACTED AS THE RESPONDENT'S LEGAL GUARDIAN; AND (g) A PERSON IN ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 18-6-800.3 (2) WITH THE RESPONDENT.

The statute referenced in the bold, italicized citation above reads as follows:

18-6-800.3. Definitions.
(2) "Intimate relationship" means a relationship between spouses, former spouses, past or present unmarried couples, or persons who are both the parents of the same child regardless of whether the persons have been married or have lived together at any time.

So, anyone that held themselves out as being one half of an 'unmarried couple' would also be allowed to petition the court, or a former spouse, etc. that no longer lives there.

1. They must petition the court ("family or household member or a law enforcement officer") and sign a sworn affidavit
2. The petitioner must establish by a "preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm".
3. If granted- initially, it is good for 14 days
4. A second hearing within 14 days is required to determine if a continuation of the order is needed, by the same standard above
5. If granted, the new order is only good for 364 days, and must be continued by hearing, again by the same standard

Additionally:

"The bill provides a respondent who had a malicious or false petition for a temporary extreme risk protection order or extreme risk protection order filed against him or her with a private cause of action against the petitioner. In the action, the plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, attorney fees, and costs."

So, a person is entitled to actual costs if someone falsely starts this process.

I guess in my humble opinion- this is one of those feel good laws, that will overall make little difference. It certainly wouldn't have stopped Columbine or Sandy Hook...

Not saying this is your opinion (because I have seen the same list of BS elsewhere), but that is a very "kind" laying out of the steps.

Step 2.1 needs added in:

2.1 - No-knock warrant is issued and SWAT is tasked to enter the home without warning, search the premises, and remove all firearms.

Other major issues:

There is no procedure for "proving" you are mentally sane, healthy, stable etc...
If the firearms are removed, and the VICTIM cannot prove they are mentally stable, refer to above - no details or discussion of what constitutes proof, at the 14 day hearing, they lose their firearms, and RIGHTS, till the 364 hearing. If they cannot "prove" the "unprovable" then, they are forever banned from a constitutional right, with NO DUE PROCESS!!!

While the lip service of "entitled to actual costs" is in there, all they have to say is "he/she said XXXX, and that made me concerned. I'm so happy I was wrong", and that's the end of it. None of these virtue signalling twats are going to be held accountable for making a claim.

I 100% agree with Newracer. Since the party being accused doesn't know about this until SWAT is breaking down there door in the middle of the night, a "preponderance" of evidence is a joke. The whole process is a joke. We have the right to face our accusers... Except when they label it as a mental health issue...

Stupid ass virtue signaling morons... (Only the people that support this farce)...

This, and many new gun restriction laws, are poorly thought through at best and intentionally vague with details on purpose at there worst. It's real simple: Think of how the (any) new, innocent/benign/moral/good intentioned/common sense/fillinthefeelgoodblank law can be abused in a manner to exaggerate applying it where it was promoted it wouldn't be and you can foresee where it'll actually be used unjustly.

I've learned a bit about dignity vs honor societies lately and have a much better understanding how honest, law abiding, people get manipulated by criminals and idealists (antifa/peta/earth first/etc type liberals) using laws for revenge...and Red Flag laws are about as ripe as any for "...I understand your intention but the law states I MUST...".

Remember when no knocks were supposed to be reserved for hardened drug dealers and gangsters? Now SWAT shows up for ol' men who are known to be benign and own no weapons.

It's time. You need to decide where you stand and what it's worth to you. Is freedom, liberty and the Constitution worth a family member? Your home? The rest of you life in a cell or the ground? When they come knocking or no knocking for mine, I've decided. I've broken no laws and have complied to every existing and new law thus thrusted upon me. This is beyond anything before. This shits on the Constitution is so many ways I can't believe we're even debating it. Debates over for me. Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. It's your duty as an American to stand up, take arms and fight. Pick a side. It's coming.

Is there not a federal judge in CO who would challenge this? Or is CO a goner beyond CA status? On second thought never mind. No ban on the Mag ban was ever brought up and strongly protested in a court that I remember.

I call bull on the story. 17 year old can't be held in county jail. If the teacher allowed it/requested it they should be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and other charges. Seems strange for this to happen in Texas a very pro open carry place.

The other kid that edited the video should be facing charges.

I agree slippery slope.

I suffered trail rejection from a carb infection and after futher inspection fuel injection was my election for proper correction and now I want some gear selection, any question?